Z,
Once again, it comes down to values... to be sustainable, Social Security requires us to make two assumptions -- one, that most of the time, each generation will be a bit bigger than the one before (the Baby Boom was an exception), and that it's acceptable to tax wealthier people to help support those who are less well-to-do.
A person who knew a thing or two about Social Security, late Senator Moynihan of New York urged Democrats to resist the temptation to turn Social Security into welfare, becasue that would kill it. We can safely assume he knows more about Social Security than you do, the question is: Do you want to kill Social Security?
The second point there is the main issue. Social Security does not work if everyone pays in at the same rate and there's a cap on how much income can be taxed per person.
More welfare, another nail in the coffin?
I feel it's OK, even noble, to have the wealthy pay more
There is always a justification why other guy should pay more...
I haven't examined Kerry's stance on Social Security (though thanks for reminding me, I should and will), but I can be fairly confident that he isn't going to be pushing private savings accounts at the expense of the traditional system.
Kerry is not planning on cutting benefits, which someone else in the know, Alan Greenspan just talked about. Anyway you look at Social Security, it doesn't add up, reforms have to be made, and Kerry doesn't want to change a thing as far as I know.
Joe |
